After an intense election cycle, voters now know who will be the 47th president of the United States. The race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump was considered a toss-up right up until the end. However, as the votes were counted, some well-known pollsters changed their predictions.
Nate Silver, one of the most prominent names in election forecasting, had his FiveThirtyEight polling model showing Harris with the advantage for much of election night. However, at 10:30 p.m., Silver abandoned his model, posting on Substack that it “was not capturing the story of the election.”
In the final days leading up to Election Day, Silver had said polls showed Harris with momentum, but his gut told him Trump would likely win. He also predicted there would be a “high chance of a clean sweep,” with one candidate winning every swing state.
As of Wednesday, Nov. 6, Trump has won four of the seven swing states that have been called. He also leads in the other three states where votes are still being counted.
Allan Lichtman, often referred to as the “Nostradamus of presidential elections,” successfully predicted the last nine of 10 presidential outcomes. Unlike other models, Lichtman’s predictions are based on historical trends and don’t rely on percentages.
He predicted a win for Harris, citing a strong economy and the lack of a strong third-party challenger as key factors in the Democrat’s favor. But on election night, during a live stream of results, Lichtman’s tone shifted.
“Trump is winning 51% of the Hispanic vote in Pennsylvania. What? That’s what CNN is showing right now. That’s not possible,” Lichtman said, expressing disbelief at the results. “The world has turned upside down.”
Up until the eve of the election, Ann Selzer was making waves with her bold prediction deep-red Iowa would go to Harris. Selzer’s poll showed Harris leading Trump by three points. But on election night, Trump carried the state with what looks to be a 13-point margin. Trump mocked the poll on the campaign trail.
“The polls are just as corrupt as some of the writers back there,” Trump said. “They can make them say anything. They brag about it. I got a poll, I’m 10 points up in Iowa. One of my enemies puts out I’m three points down. A fake poll.”
Selzer, in a statement late Tuesday night, acknowledged the discrepancy.
“The poll findings we produced for The Des Moines Register and Mediacom did not match what the Iowa electorate ultimately decided in the voting booth today,” Selzer said. “I’ll be reviewing data from multiple sources with hopes of learning why that happened. And I welcome what that process might teach me.”
Trump’s base has stumped pollsters for the past three election cycles, leading some to question their techniques in capturing his support.
“The issue is they don’t trust polls, especially when they come from media companies, so they’re not getting on the phone in the first place,” Nate Silver said. “Those people are hard to reach. If you do manage to get through to them, they might just not take the survey.”
While polling models can offer a snapshot of voter sentiment, this election cycle proves once again that predicting election outcomes remains an inexact science.
